Comments by MichelleR

I have just had a long conversation with several of the ants on my kitchen counter. Their aspiration for 2011 is learning how to make their own chocolate cake, bypassing me as the middle man. One ant, however, said he finds chocolate makes him too excitable and would prefer yellow cake. His ant buddies just pointed and laughed at him. Moving the ants and the cake outside prompted several birds to speak up in a great debate as to whether or not it was okay to eat chocolate covered ants. One bird wishes to be vegan but is finding it difficult to be true to her ethics. Her bird buddies just pointed and laughed at her. The debate about nutrition and ethics and chocolate became so loud at one point that a gopher popped up out of the lawn to complain that the birds were disturbing his underground yoga routine, interfering with his becoming One with the Universe. Apparently, in his Universe, there is no room for disagreement. One of my cats, watching the row in the yard, said that when she dies she wants to be reincarnated as a dog. I asked her what that had to do with what was happening in our yard and she said, "Nothing. I was just missing the dog we used to have and that made me realize I would like to be a dog." My other cat said she does not believe in reincarnation but that, if there was such a thing, she would like to be reincarnated as herself because, after all, she is perfect. Then she said, "purrfect", and laughed at her own cleverness.

He has every right to be a Christian, but he has no right to try to represent any aspect of the government as a Christian. When he is acting/identifying as an employee of a public school, he must remain neutral regarding religion. Nothing discriminatory about that. It applies to everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof. Would the same people who are up in arms about this feel the same way if a Muslim teacher did the same thing? A Satanist teacher? An atheist teacher?

If Ms. Mender did not want the press present, perhaps she should not have called a press conference when filing her complaint. Or did they just magically appear? And if she is in no way responsible for the press conference (over a singed political sign? Really?), perhaps she should not have agreed to be part of it if she was so very shaken up.

It was definitely thoughtless and insensitive for Mender to say that, particularly given her position at Jodi House. While I can agree with part of the comment by "whatever2" - we are becoming very "soft and sensitive", and not in a good way - I disagree with the rest. Mender does indeed owe an apology. If she was not involved with Jodi House, it would not be as much of an issue.

Hm... a rather curiously opportune burning, seems to me. Of course, it may well be that someone who wants us to vote no on T is responsible, but it may also be that this ACTIVIST was acting. One wonders. If the former, it was wrong; if the latter, it was doubly wrong.

And about that "freedom of speech" thing everyone likes to claim is being trambled when a private citizen acts in some way so as to attempt to curtail that speech... (and she is quoted complaining about it in the Newspress: "I feel this is a bigger issue than the marijuana. It's about my right of free speech in my own home." ) the First Amendment guarantees that the government will not infringe upon our freedom of speech, not that our neighbor may not try to do so.

And thirdly, I think it says much about this woman's character that she can be on the board of directors of Jodi House, a place for people with brain injuries, and then make a crack about the people who burned the sign being possibly "brain damaged".

Before this event, I had never heard of Ms. Mender. Regardless of her stance on Measure T, I can't say I am favorably impressed with her.

I am not an advocate for drug use, but I definitely do not believe in sending people to jail for doing drugs. Drugs should be decriminalized. To argue that they are harmful to the individual's body and/or mind is moot, for we do all kinds of legal things that are harmful, or potentially harmful, to ourselves. Should we begin to outlaw ALL of those things? Or should we rethink the reasons drugs were criminalized in the first place, examine the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of "The War On Drugs"? The latter, methinks.

I always wonder if this "psychic" also has insects talking to her. Viruses too? Bacteria...? Or is it only mammals and only the domesticated of those? And do cockroaches also go to "heaven"? Do amoebae?